JUDGMENT

1. The only question in this appeal is as to the correctness of the principle upon which damages were estimated by the Courts below. The suit was one for damages for the wrongful cutting and conversion of the crops of the plaintiff. The damages in such a case is the loss sustained by the plaintiff by reason of the removal and conversion of his crops, calculated on the market-value of the crops, It was the duty of the Courts below to ascertain what was the value of the crops which were so removed. The learned Subordinate Judge in this judgment refers to the conflicting nature of the oral testimony of witnesses on both sides, the plaintiff's witnesses exaggerating and the defendants underrating the quantity of the produce. "The plaintiff", he says, "assessed the damages on the ground of the produce having been 20 maunds per bigha, which was the maximum produce which the land was capable of producing. The defendants on the other hand alleged that the produce was only 9 maunds per bigha". In this conflict of testimony the learned Judge came to the conclusion that everything should be presumed against a spoliator, and acting on that principle held that the presumption was that t